Told not so sign-on on Industrial Strike Day now they wont pay me.

cit_k

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous. By being polite and patient the OP has remedied the problem, why would she want to create a bad name for herself by making frivolous complaints?

So two seperate officials, AND a government instruct someone NOT to sign on.

They dont sign on, they are then facing a sanction, and dont get their money...

Thats not a frivoulous problem, thats a major issue - and possibly one that was done to a lot more people to.

Its negligence from the dwp at best, and if that cached copy had not been found they would have had no way of proving their case, and would have faced a sanction no doubt.

Arg

tomjonesrules wrote: »

Don't be so ridiculous. By being polite and patient the OP has remedied the problem, why would she want to create a bad name for herself by making frivolous complaints?

Don't be stupid, the DWP employees should be glad they aren't being charged with fraud.

Vejovis

Arg wrote: »

Don't be stupid, the DWP employees should be glad they aren't being charged with fraud.

how stupid. why would they be charged with fraud, if every person in every job who made a mistake was charged with fraud the courts would be full forevermore

cit_k

Vejovis wrote: »

how stupid. why would they be charged with fraud, if every person in every job who made a mistake was charged with fraud the courts would be full forevermore

Explain that to the people introducing universal credit - a 50 pound penalty will be applied to claimaints who make a 'mistake' ie is negligent filling in their claim form, or at any other point in the claim.

Thats at BEST, and of course, on top of repaying any over payment.

At worst, if its proven its on purpose, they can face fraud charges.

DWP error is higher than claimaint fraud, people NEED to complain, because its a bigger problem than fraud.

If people complained, perhaps, one day, sufficient complaints would be lodged against the idiots (assuming they are not doing it on purpose) to have them fired.

At the very least, the jobcenter in question should (but probably wont) be investigating all calls those people handled, to see if they had put anyone else up for sanction based on a non sanctionable event, because if they did it to one person, chances are they did it to all...

If I ran the place, I would also want to know just why any member of staff did something so stupid in the first place, and look into training or discipline as required.

But, the DWP is probably going to just refer it to a DM, as a normal case, not investigate a darn thing, not ensure it does not happen again, not investigate to see how many other innocent people may be affected etc.

Unless serious complaints are made that is.

Vejovis

on purpose being the operative words, this wasnt on purpose so its not fraud. im not entirely sure what the rest of your post has to do with anything though, the thread is nothing to do with univeral credit

cit_k

So,if its not on purpose, what else is it?

It must have been a case of someone who had no idea what the situation was, making it up as they go along, ie knowingly giving out incorrect advise.

If they had been ethical, they would have realised they did not know for sure, and checked, they obviously did not, so on purpose, they continued with a course of action based on their own incompetance.

Vejovis

if its not on purpose it is what most errors are, human error

cit_k

Vejovis wrote: »

if its not on purpose it is what most errors are, human error

An error is not usually acting in the opposite way to the legislation and situation at the time.... Its not a slip of the pen, its not a spelling mistake, its not a complex thing, its a DWP decision maker, looking at the facts and acting in completely the wrong manner.

They are legally bound to investigate all the evidence, and to take into consideration all relevent evidence.

They obviously failed in their legal duty to check if they were required to sign on, then they failed to check their work, before passing on the message to the claimaint.

Wether that happened through lazyness, or whatever, its still a deliberate act to not do their job properly, or to not inform someone of their concerns that they were incapable of doing their job properly.

robpw2

its the dwp .. as far as im concerned they probably are using it as an excuse just to stop peoples money .. they clearlly havent found enough disabled people to deicive so now going after people who couldnt sign on due to industrial action

cit_k

robpw2 wrote: »

its the dwp .. as far as im concerned they probably are using it as an excuse just to stop peoples money .. they clearlly havent found enough disabled people to deicive so now going after people who couldnt sign on due to industrial action

Its amazing the number of 'mistakes' the dwp make, I have been on the receiving end of so many I cant even remember then all now.

And how they only lose evidence that would be detrimental to them, but seem to have stuff that is in their favour for years longer...

And how they rarely seem to have a clue what is going on.

If they were in a private company, many would have been fired long ago.

I find it so ironic, they are going to penalise CLAIMAINTS 50 quid for each non fraudulent negligent action, yet it never enters their head to penalise the DWP staff (or contractors like ATOS) who do far worse..